Moderator note: This thread is a continuation of discussion that started in the following thread:

The Hubble tends to validate the bible
----

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4528&stc=1&d=1329791204

The above are proplyds from the Hubble site (http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/star/protoplanetary_disk/)

My opinion in this is that classic mechanics, solidification physics, geological accretion and astrophysical accretion work together with gravity to accrete particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks and water together to form these protoplanetary disks, likely from intergallactic hydrogen clouds (John Dobson's pet). The disk shown in the lower left is dark in it's center and this does not appear to be the Hubble's "dodger" masking a bright, ignited star, yet the disk is luminous and may contain a plasma jet.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4527&stc=1&d=1329791115

The above shows a plasma jet from a good angle along the disk it is emitting from. For this to occur, a great concentration of gravity would need be present and this is evidenced by the toroid geometry of the disk as material flows toward its center. These jets are truly not very visible, so a filter allows us to see the red ionized hydrogen plasma, still we can see areas where the influx of glowing hot, condensing matter that are opaque, hiding what's behind them. Those opaque areas would be the unignited, condensing star.

From all of these shots alone, it is possible to draw the concludion, based upon the physics of solidification, that a lower mass, of the same material, will lose its heat faster than the larger mass, taking into account a homogenity of the material, that the planets of a proplyd will cool before the star ignites. From the apparent evidence that much of this incoming material is already luminous, sufficient light would be present to illuminate these new planets, likely to the extent that advanced plant life could develop on them prior to the star actually igniting.

If that turns out to be true, it will go quite a ways in pointing out that the part of Genesis 1, in the Bible, where the earth is created before the sun is placed in the sky, is chronologically accurate to a reasonable degree. This may clear up one of the controversial elements the theist and atheist religions seem to argue about so much.

This may clear up one of the controversial elements the theist and atheist religions seem to argue about so much.There is no such thing as an "atheist religion," except in the arcane language of the U.S. government, which commands very little respect.

Furthermore, the phrase "theist religion" is redundant.

If you want to post here, please use the correct terminology.

--The Linguistics Moderator.

HectorDecimal:

Your post seems to be in the wrong forum. Which religions are you comparing?


My opinion in this is that classic mechanics, solidification physics, geological accretion and astrophysical accretion work together with gravity to accrete particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks and water together to form these protoplanetary disks, likely from intergallactic hydrogen clouds (John Dobson's pet). The disk shown in the lower left is dark in it's center and this does not appear to be the Hubble's "dodger" masking a bright, ignited star, yet the disk is luminous and may contain a plasma jet.

Why do you conclude that there is no star there? What does NASA and the Hubble team have to say about that particular image?


The above shows a plasma jet from a good angle along the disk it is emitting from. For this to occur, a great concentration of gravity would need be present and this is evidenced by the toroid geometry of the disk as material flows toward its center. These jets are truly not very visible, so a filter allows us to see the red ionized hydrogen plasma, still we can see areas where the influx of glowing hot, condensing matter that are opaque, hiding what's behind them. Those opaque areas would be the unignited, condensing star.

Is that a picture of the same object as before (bottom left in your first image)?

What is the Hubble team's explanation of the jets?

How do you know the opaque areas are not just dust obscuring a star or some other object?


From all of these shots alone, it is possible to draw the concludion, based upon the physics of solidification, that a lower mass, of the same material, will lose its heat faster than the larger mass, taking into account a homogenity of the material, that the planets of a proplyd will cool before the star ignites.

You get all that from these shots alone, do you?

What is the physics of solidification, by the way? Can you explain that a little for me?

Is your theory that the planets form before a star ignites contrary to the prevalent view of scientists? If so, could you please link me to a few of the papers that you've read which outline the prevaling point of view, and explain where your ideas depart from that view?


From the apparent evidence that much of this incoming material is already luminous, sufficient light would be present to illuminate these new planets, likely to the extent that advanced plant life could develop on them prior to the star actually igniting.

Why is the incoming material already luminous?

Also, please show me your calculations of the sufficiency of the light on the planets in question.


If that turns out to be true, it will go quite a ways in pointing out that the part of Genesis 1, in the Bible, where the earth is created before the sun is placed in the sky, is chronologically accurate to a reasonable degree.

Genesis is a creation myth story, not a science textbook.


This may clear up one of the controversial elements the theist and atheist religions seem to argue about so much.

Atheism isn't a religion.

What controversy are you referring to?

HectorD.
Your OP makes more sense this time.
I think I understand what you are getting at.

Sometimes you seem to expect people to understand your point of view without reasonable explanation.
You haven't got a touch of Aspergers have you?

It's not a subject I know much about.
That doesn't always stop me from arguing,
but I'll try to resist the temptation to learn on the hop,
and leave it to others to debate it with you.
I will be following the thread though,
and may come back in if I feel I have something to offer.

Welcome to sciforums.
You look like shaping into one of our great eccentrics,
and the standard is tough.

Good luck with Fraggle and James.
You'll need it. :)

There is no such thing as an "atheist religion," except in the arcane language of the U.S. government, which commands very little respect.

Furthermore, the phrase "theist religion" is redundant.

If you want to post here, please use the correct terminology.

--The Linguistics Moderator.

Theist = an adjective; a TYPE of belief (Now "theism religion" would be redundant)

Religion = an noun; a belief


Fraggle, I'm an American. I don't know where you are. I started a new post, with the intent of narrowing the scope, lessening the content that could be seen as allegory. Just because a moderator's OPINION conflicts with the English languish which I think the rules states is the language of choice, does not change the definition supplied in many dictionary versions. Yes, the supreme court here in American ruled it a religion, a belief, likely to allow us all more freedom of speech.

Since you seem angry with America's court decisions, would you clue me in to what country you reside in? :shrug:

You may be the linguistics moderator, but that would also give you the responsibility to remain neutral and to be exceptionally careful not to come across as trolling. This post is designed to get under my skin, not contribute. I'm reporting it.

HectorDecimal:

Your post seems to be in the wrong forum. Which religions are you comparing?

Per the rule, from a scientific approach, I'm comparing ALL religions including atheism, most by implication of the content that the Biblical religion may find some validation, void of saying the others are validated as well.

Why do you conclude that there is no star there? What does NASA and the Hubble team have to say about that particular image?

I did not say there was no star. I said the star had not ignited. All are subject to speculation and theorization, using math pre se, whether it be this perspective or NASA's or David Levy's or Galileo's.


Is that a picture of the same object as before (bottom left in your first image)?

No. Different objects in the Orion Nebula.

What is the Hubble team's explanation of the jets?

Similar to mine. Remind you that specualtion is present in all cases. The Hubble team are satellite people more than the people out here who examine the findings more extensively.

How do you know the opaque areas are not just dust obscuring a star or some other object?

Good point. In this case, though, a keen eye can resolve the geometry of the gravitational field (assuming we are discussing the plasma jet) through inference. You can get a higher res shot at the site. I used smaller ones for browser compatibility courtesy.



You get all that from these shots alone, do you?

Not just these alone, but they are good examples.

What is the physics of solidification, by the way? Can you explain that a little for me?

I did a little bit. A real world example is Jello. If we make a 3 gallon batch in a stainless steel container, then pour out say half a gallon into 3 inch diameter x 2 inch high stainless steel dishes, all the same gauge material, and put them in the fridge at the same time, the smaller dishes of Jello will gel first. Left uncovered for a long time, to further the example, a crust would develop first on the smaller dishes of Jello before the heat has left the original 3 gallon pot.

Is your theory that the planets form before a star ignites contrary to the prevalent view of scientists? If so, could you please link me to a few of the papers that you've read which outline the prevaling point of view, and explain where your ideas depart from that view?

I'll see what I can do. I may actually have to scan in a page or two from a book and may not have time today, but Hold on to that question for a bit and I'll oblige.



Why is the incoming material already luminous?

That's a good question that would lead any scientist to the chalk board, so to speak. For now let's just say "Gravity." What is gravity? Another subject. Tht too can shake some religious folks beliefs, because it may imply that God didn't create Himself, gravity did.

Also, please show me your calculations of the sufficiency of the light on the planets in question.

I don't do latex and I notice these editors aren't equation friendly. Put that on my "to do" list. I'll either use my equation editor and do a screen grab or find my old notes and scan them in.



Genesis is a creation myth story, not a science textbook.

We are in an area where we are to compare the two. That's what I'm doing.



Atheism isn't a religion.

That is up for debate. The supreme court ruled it is. Till that is overturned here in America, it is reduced to semantic refuge.

What controversy are you referring to?

See your last comment and my rebuttal


There's most of it, for starters. I won't be able to do a lot of "fetch the stick" routines for a day or two. It's getting warm enough for me to fix an outside plumbing problem that would find some lying face down in it, so that's my priority. Just so all know, I'm not ignoring your posts. I'll get to them as long as they are pretty much on the surface. By that I'm saying, don't bury everything in a big, flustered hurry.

(And that @#@%$$^% pod bay door better be open when I get back, HAL...) :D

HectorD.
Your OP makes more sense this time.
I think I understand what you are getting at.

Sometimes you seem to expect people to understand your point of view without reasonable explanation.
You haven't got a touch of Aspergers have you?

I may look into that. I don't believe ANYONE is perfectly without some cracked plumbing in places. Fact is, my other half is a psychiatric nurse, but MS has pretty much cancelled her career save for conversing with me. I have discussed the "essence" of simply assuming everyone sees things I think are simple to grasp.

It's not a subject I know much about.
That doesn't always stop me from arguing,
but I'll try to resist the temptation to learn on the hop,
and leave it to others to debate it with you.
I will be following the thread though,
and may come back in if I feel I have something to offer.

Welcome to sciforums.
You look like shaping into one of our great eccentrics,
and the standard is tough.

Good luck with Fraggle and James.
You'll need it. :)

Thankyou for the post. As long as they are civil and word their posts in a non-inflamatory style, VOID OF AMBIGUITY that might make them seem heated, we might all get along.

Oh and Yes, I'm eccentric. Sometimes we eccentric minds produce the very thing everyone was looking for. Look at Farnsworth. Eccentric, yet pragmatic. He invented the TV.

How do you know the opaque areas are not just dust obscuring a star or some other object?




It is unfortunate he did not refer to the Hubble Team's explanation about the image he posted:



DG Tauri B: A Star With a Thick Dust Lane and Bright Gas Jet

DG Tauri B appears very similar to HH 30, with jets and a central dark lane with reflected starlight at its edges. In this WFPC2 image, the dust lane is much thicker than seen in HH 30, indicating that dusty material is still in the process of falling onto the hidden star and disk. The bright jet extends a distance of 90 billion miles away from the system.


http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-1999-05-k-web.jpg


http://m.hubblesite.org/vote/pr1999005k



They then provide a link to a full series of images (http://m.hubblesite.org/newscenter/1999/05) which discusses the possible birth of planets around new young stars.


http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-1999-05-b-web.jpg


Although these pictures from the Hubble telescope don't show planets, the edge-on disks seen by the telescope provide some of the clearest views to date of potential planetary construction zones, say researchers. The images also offer a peek at what happened 4.5 billion years ago when the Earth and other planets in our solar system began to condense out of a pancake-shaped disk of dust and gas centered on the young Sun. These images were taken by Hubble's infrared camera. All of the objects in these pictures are extremely young stars, buried in the centers of these pictures. The wisps of material surrounding the young stars are glowing from reflected starlight.


__________________________________________________ _____________




Similar to mine. Remind you that specualtion is present in all cases. The Hubble team are satellite people more than the people out here who examine the findings more extensively.


Are you claiming to know more than the "Hubble Team"?

The "Hubble Team" determined that the opaque and dark area is actually a disk of dust surrounding the star. It does not indicate an "unignited star". Quite the contrary.

The jets are actually illuminated by the star itself, which you can see the scientists who study the Hubble images have already stated.

Do you have evidence which would prove them wrong?

Because NASA have clearly stated that the Hubble images you posted amounted to disks of dust circling young stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk).. Which clearly defies your argument that it supports Genesis, which states that Earth formed before our sun. Unless of course you have other evidence which contradicts NASA and the "Hubble Team"?

the dust lane is much thicker than seen in HH 30, indicating that dusty material is still in the process of falling onto the hidden star and disk.

See? While I'm getting my hip waders on, someone fetches the "stick" for me. (Hopefully a fresh diaper for that poor baby... :D )

Hip waders = plumbing nightmare in real life :( (you wouldn't want this project and a plumber wants $15k to do it...)

As for do I think I know more than the HST team? That's a meaningless question? Let's say I believe I'm at least as educated about physics as they are.

All of these shots can only show us what was happening at the time the photons started heading our way. We still do not have shots that make the "tea cup jump together again and back up onto the table." Everyone is guessing a bit.

At over 200 posts, I've grown to know some of you a bit and the nature of posting here. We can't dismiss either perspective and the HST team can't provide time lapse photography of all this yet.

We can only test telescopic views through inference. Sometimes an inference can be delineated by working the numbers of the failing hypothesis.

What the dust lane actually proves is that
1. the symmetry of the forces invovled in the plasma jet picture are toroid.
2. Those particles flowing in are solidified enough to have a reflective, yet possibly autolumination multiplexed, albedo.

We measure microwaves, x-rays, etcetera, of a small area of the sky. It's a big ass sky.

For what it's worth guys, I'm SYMPATHETIC to the atheist belief. I've been there. Done that. Dismissed it. I find it disgusting, though, when the dogmatic GIGO from ANY religion interferes with what would perhaps be defined better as a theoanaesthetic perspective. It's a meaningless grasp for a dopamine rush to slam the table and insist one belief or another is an absolute.

Sometime I'll start a thread examining the subject of that gravity query: Is their a void?

I think we'd ALL like to know for certain, but like Jack Webb used to say on Dragnet "The facts, ma'am. Just the facts."

One fact. Letters between others of that era, describe that a fellow named Jesus, as (H)e is described did exist and was crucified. Beyond that, we must sort out for ourselves. It's been MANY years since I read the book that was in. I think it was "The Story of Mankind" or something like that. I don't have the book anymore, unfortunately a casualty to my first marriage and divorce.

Some think Allister Crowley was God. I can't disprove that, but I can refuse to accept it.

And I started out subscribing to witchcraft...

Occam's Razor Solution: The Genesis Project 1.0

Why does the subject line contain a reference to Ockham's razor? That heuristic principle suggests that simpler theories should be preferred over needlessly complex theories. So how does linking some Hubble photographs to ancient cosmological speculations result in a simpler theory than just treating the photographs as illustrations of astrophysical events, without introducing all of the extraneous religious stuff?


The Hubble tends to validate the bible

I disagree. I don't think that the Hubble photographs have much relevence to the Bible at all.


My opinion in this is that classic mechanics, solidification physics, geological accretion and astrophysical accretion work together with gravity to accrete particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks and water together to form these protoplanetary disks

Ok, that's not very controversial.


From all of these shots alone, it is possible to draw the concludion, based upon the physics of solidification, that a lower mass, of the same material, will lose its heat faster than the larger mass, taking into account a homogenity of the material, that the planets of a proplyd will cool before the star ignites.

But what makes you think that planets have already formed in there? You seem to be sneaking in your desired conclusion among your assumptions.


From the apparent evidence that much of this incoming material is already luminous, sufficient light would be present to illuminate these new planets, likely to the extent that advanced plant life could develop on them prior to the star actually igniting.

We still need convincing reason to believe that there isn't already a bright young star in there that's illuminating the gas. That's how the astronomers associated with Hubble seem to interpret it.

Any talk of "these new planets" is still just your own conjecture. The planets still need to be demonstrated.

And "likely to the extent that advanced plant life could develop on them prior to the star actually igniting" seems to be entirely gratuitous. Nothing in the Hubble imagery even remotely suggests that.


If that turns out to be true, it will go quite a ways in pointing out that the part of Genesis 1, in the Bible, where the earth is created before the sun is placed in the sky, is chronologically accurate to a reasonable degree.

Of course Genesis suggests that the Earth was the very first thing created. That would make it the oldest object in the universe. So all this talk about accretion disks and planetary formation, if it's applied to the Earth, would appear to already contradict Genesis.


This may clear up one of the controversial elements the theist and atheist religions seem to argue about so much.

You shouldn't end your posts with trollish little zingers like that.

HectorDecimal:

Your post seems to be in the wrong forum. Which religions are you comparing?



Why do you conclude that there is no star there? What does NASA and the Hubble team have to say about that particular image?



Is that a picture of the same object as before (bottom left in your first image)?

What is the Hubble team's explanation of the jets?

How do you know the opaque areas are not just dust obscuring a star or some other object?



You get all that from these shots alone, do you?

What is the physics of solidification, by the way? Can you explain that a little for me?

Is your theory that the planets form before a star ignites contrary to the prevalent view of scientists? If so, could you please link me to a few of the papers that you've read which outline the prevaling point of view, and explain where your ideas depart from that view?



Why is the incoming material already luminous?

Also, please show me your calculations of the sufficiency of the light on the planets in question.



Genesis is a creation myth story, not a science textbook.



Atheism isn't a religion.

What controversy are you referring to?

How can you be so positive and attempting to discredit an individual that offers a different view then yours

Why does the subject line contain a reference to Ockham's razor? That heuristic principle suggests that simpler theories should be preferred over needlessly complex theories. So how does linking some Hubble photographs to ancient cosmological speculations result in a simpler theory than just treating the photographs as illustrations of astrophysical events, without introducing all of the extraneous religious stuff?



I disagree. I don't think that the Hubble photographs have much relevence to the Bible at all.



Ok, that's not very controversial.



But what makes you think that planets have already formed in there? You seem to be sneaking in your desired conclusion among your assumptions.



We still need convincing reason to believe that there isn't already a bright young star in there that's illuminating the gas. That's how the astronomers associated with Hubble seem to interpret it.

Any talk of "these new planets" is still just your own conjecture. The planets still need to be demonstrated.

And "likely to the extent that advanced plant life could develop on them prior to the star actually igniting" seems to be entirely gratuitous. Nothing in the Hubble imagery even remotely suggests that.



Of course Genesis suggests that the Earth was the very first thing created. That would make it the oldest object in the universe. So all this talk about accretion disks and planetary formation, if it's applied to the Earth, would appear to already contradict Genesis.



You shouldn't end your posts with trollish little zingers like that.

It would seem that, in an easiest path, Auruca has answered all your questions. That last statement of your post, though, could be mirrored right backatcha.

Do you drink a lot of coffee? Your post seems to be slamming a fist on the table at best, while grabbing a row of some reseacher's already sequenced vials of DNA and thrusting them, now randomized, into their face. Here in INdiana, if someone does that, even if it was Eli Lilly's CEO, the worker could call the cops and have the disruptive individual arrested for criminal mischief within a scientific facility. It's a Class D felony.

Please, Yazata, show us that you respect ypour own intelligence and others as well. Pull one metaphorical vial at a time and ask what it means. If you overwhelm me with queries, I can interpret that as disruption and I'm in no way obligated to answer a disruptive post.

arauca


How can you be so positive and attempting to discredit an individual that offers a different view then yours

It's called "knowledge", or "science", and pointing out the disinformation and misunderstanding of others is to discredit their statements, not the individual. Heactor claims to be some sort of scientist, but his statements indicate otherwise, he keeps trying to fit science into his belief system, twisting the explanations of these Hubble images to fit his preconceived beliefs, that is in no way scientific. The fact is that the inner planets being rocky indicates they formed after the sun ignited and blew the lighter elements outward to where the gas/ice planets formed, leaving behind the heavier rocks and dust to form Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars plus the rubble of the asteroid belt. Hector's "view" is simply not supported by the facts and pointing that out is not an attack on the person, but on the ideas expressed by that person.

Grumpy:cool:

arauca



It's called "knowledge", or "science", and pointing out the disinformation and misunderstanding of others is to discredit their statements, not the individual. Heactor claims to be some sort of scientist, but his statements indicate otherwise, he keeps trying to fit science into his belief system, twisting the explanations of these Hubble images to fit his preconceived beliefs, that is in no way scientific. The fact is that the inner planets being rocky indicates they formed after the sun ignited and blew the lighter elements outward to where the gas/ice planets formed, leaving behind the heavier rocks and dust to form Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars plus the rubble of the asteroid belt. Hector's "view" is simply not supported by the facts and pointing that out is not an attack on the person, but on the ideas expressed by that person.

Grumpy:cool:

Actually I do not do as you seem to think, Grumpy. A little later I'll respond to this in better depth, but for the meantime, I treat science as a probe only. A scientist usually has a feel for things and explores an avenue based upon their hunch. Some people think in terms of 2D... cartoon characters. Others think in 4D and translate 3D into 2D and add frames to it all, Voila!
We have Pummillo Fatuas moving across the screen.

It took Walt Disney a small army of animators to represent his 4D thoughts to those who think in 2D.

HectorDecimal


Actually I do not do as you seem to think, Grumpy. A little later I'll respond to this in better depth, but for the meantime, I treat science as a probe only. A scientist usually has a feel for things and explores an avenue based upon their hunch. Some people think in terms of 2D... cartoon characters. Others think in 4D and translate 3D into 2D and add frames to it all, Voila!
We have Pummillo Fatuas moving across the screen.

It took Walt Disney a small army of animators to represent his 4D thoughts to those who think in 2D.

I don't think you twist and distort science to justify your preconceived beliefs, every post you make demonstrates that is exactly what you do. I seriously doubt you know anything about what scientists actually do, you certainly don't know anything about what they have found actually means.

Grumpy:cool:

One fact. Letters between others of that era, describe that a fellow named Jesus, as (H)e is described did exist and was crucified. Beyond that, we must sort out for ourselves.

Wow, contemporary letters from the time of Jesus, as opposed to much later, and they are actually discussing Jesus; this is a big find.


It's been MANY years since I read the book that was in. I think it was "The Story of Mankind" or something like that.

Oh no! you lost the book and don't remember the name. Darn, well I am sure you have faith it existed.

So, HD, are you going to address my points yet? I see James has raised similar points.

To remind you:

Herbig Haro objects, of which DG Tau B is one, have ignited stars in their core. Except Class 0 (there are three classes, defined I believe by their spectral characteristics), which have proto-stars in their cores.

So, all but the very youngest of Herbig Haro objects have ignited stars in their cores (but they haven't neccessarily reached equilibrium yet, like T-Tauri variables).

The literature I have read in relation to DG Tau B suggests that it is not a Class 0 Herbig Haro.

Proto-planetary disks form with the star, as part of the accretionary process. In other words, the accretion disk that the star forms within becomes the protoplanetary disk that forms the planets. No proto-star, means no accretionary disk, means no planets.

The difference between a proplyd and a herbig-haro object is that the proplyds are externally illuminated, where the herbig haro objects are not (well, not significantly anyway).
source (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2906063&postcount=104)

And:

If gravity existed by this point, the oceans would have already 'gathered into one place', but the bible explicitly states that it occurs on the second day, not the first day, when the sky is created.
Source (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2906211&postcount=119)

Please, Yazata, show us that you respect ypour own intelligence and others as well. Pull one metaphorical vial at a time and ask what it means. If you overwhelm me with queries, I can interpret that as disruption and I'm in no way obligated to answer a disruptive post.

You're not obligated to do anything, Hector. But you did start a thread with a long post in which you made a whole variety of controversial claims. I quoted from your post and commented on some of your points.

I asked why you had referred to Ockham's razor, pointed out some statements in your text that appear to go far beyond anything that the Hubble images actually show, and ended by pointing out that even if your argument was correct, it would still contradict Genesis.

Wow, contemporary letters from the time of Jesus, as opposed to much later, and they are actually discussing Jesus; this is a big find.



Oh no! you lost the book and don't remember the name. Darn, well I am sure you have faith it existed.



Oh no! that fellow named Jesus said that if a man divorces and remarries then he is an adulterer. Yikes - hope you didn't remarry!:eek:


http://www.hotbooksale.com/store/productView.aspx?idProduct=80605&ec=1&ProdId=76&utm_source=msn&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=the%20story%20of%20mankind&utm_campaign=HBS-HBS05&b=MSN_HBS_76_HBS_HBS05_80605_00_*GeoUSCA*__the%20s tory%20of%20mankind


Guess I did get the title dredged up from memory correctly. You may find it at a public library, too...


FWIW... I'm not remarried. Bye bye to your strawman...

You're not obligated to do anything, Hector. But you did start a thread with a long post in which you made a whole variety of controversial claims. I quoted from your post and commented on some of your points.

I asked why you had referred to Ockham's razor, pointed out some statements in your text that appear to go far beyond anything that the Hubble images actually show, and ended by pointing out that even if your argument was correct, it would still contradict Genesis.

The points were made unkindly, it would seem.

Compared to many, that's hardly a long post. Most were pics.

Occam's Razor refers to the solution of dispensing with digging through that original thread to repair it. In spite of that, there is some essence of the path of least resistance involved in a star forming. I'm certain many questions will arise, but if this were a table and people were hyped up on... something... slamming fists and demanding you perform according to what each individual sees as correct, what would you do? Would you kiss each of their asses or would you break out a tazer and silence the meanest one?

Occam's Razor likely has something to do with this and even some other threads I'm thinking of composing, especially on that gravity issue, but I think we are a long way from discussing that connection.

So, HD, are you going to address my points yet? I see James has raised similar points.

To remind you:

source (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2906063&postcount=104)

And:

Source (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2906211&postcount=119)

This appears to be from another thread. Just because the mod perverted this thread by making it a continuation of the other one, doesn't mean I agreed to that perversion. You see how I answered James' query. Submit it to me in a format where I can answer it like that and we'll see what I can do. If the question is unreasonable, I'll say that too, but as you can see from the "James" example, I supply rebuttal or just plain old answers as "business as usual." As you can see from the above example to Grumpy, I'm rejecting mean spirited posts or those that even appear to be such.

Bring Garbage In and you'll take Garbage Out (GIGO). I recommend you begin at THIS launch post and reject the moderator's perversion.

Shouldn't you be fixing that plumbing?

Shouldn't you be fixing that plumbing?

Other things cropped up to put that on hold till tomorrow. It's in the high 40's in February here today. It's supposed to be in the 50's tomorrow and high 50's Thursday. For this area, it's a totally different winter.

This appears to be from another thread.
Irrelevant. You used the same images, have presented the same information, and forwarded the same hypothesis. The same objections arise naturally. Dodging them again is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.


Just because the mod perverted this thread by making it a continuation of the other one, doesn't mean I agreed to that perversion.
You've presented us with nothing new, simply regurgitated the same hypothesis, and presented the same 'evidence'.


You see how I answered James' query. Submit it to me in a format where I can answer it like that and we'll see what I can do.
I've done that already.

DG Tau B is not a Class 0 Herbig Haro object, therefore does not support your hypothesis, because it contains an ignited star (all be it a very young ignited star).

Even class 0 Herbig haro objects do not support your hypothesis because the contain protostars.

The difference between a proplyd and a herbig haro object is, by in large, the lighting.

There is no evidence that the disks in Herbig Haro objects, or in proplyds contain fully formed planets, let alone fully formed planets capable of sustaining plant life. In fact, they arguably demonstrate the opposite, given that the dust lane is thick enough to obscure the central star.

Even if we accept your hypothesis, what we see here is god using gravity to craft the planets and stars, which contradicts Genesis which implies that the earth and sun were formed first, and then gravity was created (which also contradicts your hypothesis that god was created by gravity).

Each of these points is a refutation of your hypothesis, and require evidence, and a counter argument to address them.


Bring Garbage In and you'll take Garbage Out (GIGO). I recommend you begin at THIS launch post and reject the moderator's perversion.
You've made this point once before, and I'll say the same thing to you now that I said to you then. If my responses to you are garbage out, then your posts are the garbage that goes in in the first place, so I would be careful about how many times I threw that around, were I in your position.

Irrelevant. You used the same images, have presented the same information, and forwarded the same hypothesis. The same objections arise naturally. Dodging them again is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.


You've presented us with nothing new, simply regurgitated the same hypothesis, and presented the same 'evidence'.


I've done that already.

DG Tau B is not a Class 0 Herbig Haro object, therefore does not support your hypothesis, because it contains an ignited star (all be it a very young ignited star).

DG Tauri B appears very similar to HH 30, with jets and a central dark lane with reflected starlight at its edges. In this WFPC2 image, the dust lane is much thicker than seen in HH 30, indicating that dusty material is still in the process of falling onto the hidden star and disk. The bright jet extends a distance of 90 billion miles away from the system.

Object Name: DG Tauri B

Nothing there about it being ignited.

Even class 0 Herbig haro objects do not support your hypothesis because the contain protostars.

The difference between a proplyd and a herbig haro object is, by in large, the lighting.

There is no evidence that the disks in Herbig Haro objects, or in proplyds contain fully formed planets, let alone fully formed planets capable of sustaining plant life. In fact, they arguably demonstrate the opposite, given that the dust lane is thick enough to obscure the central star.

And that may well be. UNfortunately the dust lane obscures the star, so it is only a guess (and likely a hope) that the star is actually ignited.

Even if we accept your hypothesis, what we see here is god using gravity to craft the planets and stars, which contradicts Genesis which implies that the earth and sun were formed first, and then gravity was created (which also contradicts your hypothesis that god was created by gravity).

Now how could a deity possibly use gravity to craft the planets and stars if no deity exists?

Each of these points is a refutation of your hypothesis, and require evidence, and a counter argument to address them.

Thus I supplied the original hypothesis, you supplied the counter-hypothesis and it is now nullified to become a theory for each of us.


You've made this point once before, and I'll say the same thing to you now that I said to you then. If my responses to you are garbage out, then your posts are the garbage that goes in in the first place, so I would be careful about how many times I threw that around, were I in your position.


And I'm not reflecting on this as GIGO, now am I? You did as I asked. I answered as you asked. Now that we've worked together and formed a theory, perhaps you'd like to help me with the plumbing :D

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4532&stc=1&d=1329861706

...and here's a bit to describe the artist and engineer in me. I wasn't kidding. The riser on the van I built, pretty much refurbished the old F-150 and painted the mural on the side. The mural took me about 2 man-hours, not inclusive of prepping the surface and mixing the colors.


I just might be able to discern some geodesics a bit better than even some of the HST team. Maybe...

I see an unignited, forming star

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4531&stc=1&d=1329861651

This may depict the gravitational field that begins the main accretion phase.

Are you that James Taylor lookalike?
He's one of my all-time favourites actually.

When you start on the plumbing,
could you post some pictures?
I've almost lost the will to live reading this thread,
but I'd like to see the plumbing problem.

HectorDecimal


what we see here is god using gravity to craft the planets and stars

What we see here is gravity forming the star and possibly planets.

Apply Occam's Razor to these two statements, which is the more likely according to Occam? God is simply not needed, nor is there anything in the image to indicate his presence. Gravity alone does a fine job all on it's own, so the razor slices your addition of a supernatural force all to shreds.


I just might be able to discern some geodesics a bit better than even some of the HST team. Maybe...


You've provided no reason to think that, and many to doubt it.


DG Tauri B appears very similar to HH 30, with jets and a central dark lane with reflected starlight at its edges. In this WFPC2 image, the dust lane is much thicker than seen in HH 30, indicating that dusty material is still in the process of falling onto the hidden star and disk. The bright jet extends a distance of 90 billion miles away from the system.

Object Name: DG Tauri B

Nothing there about it being ignited.

If it has a jet the star is ignited already, if it is lit from within, the star is already ignited.


Thus I supplied the original hypothesis, you supplied the counter-hypothesis and it is now nullified to become a theory for each of us.

You don't even know the first thing about what a theory is, do you? A theory is not formed by nullification, nor can one call a hypothesis a theory if one produces nothing to support the theory. Now we know you have no scientific training whatsoever.

Grumpy:cool:

DG Tauri B appears very similar to HH 30, with jets and a central dark lane with reflected starlight at its edges. In this WFPC2 image, the dust lane is much thicker than seen in HH 30, indicating that dusty material is still in the process of falling onto the hidden star and disk. The bright jet extends a distance of 90 billion miles away from the system.

Object Name: DG Tauri B

Nothing there about it being ignited.
Do you think that that single page is the extent of the literature available on DG Tau B?

I thought you said you were an astrophysicist?

There is other literature available, regarding DG Tau B that Identifies it as a young (ignited) star, rather than a protostar.


And that may well be. UNfortunately the dust lane obscures the star, so it is only a guess (and likely a hope) that the star is actually ignited.
Again, I thought you said you were an astrophysicist?

There are other lines of evidence that allow us to infer whether or not an object is capable of sustaining fusion.


Now how could a deity possibly use gravity to craft the planets and stars if no deity exists?
Dishonest hack. Do not avoid the question. Address it.

My personal opinion on the existence or non existence of some 'thing' has no bearing, and no relevance to my considerations of the consequences of the existence of that 'thing'. I am perfectly capable of entertaining an idea, and deducing from that idea its logical consequences without accepting that idea.


Thus I supplied the original hypothesis, you supplied the counter-hypothesis and it is now nullified to become a theory for each of us.
You have yet to actually address anything I have raised in any depth.


And I'm not reflecting on this as GIGO, now am I? You did as I asked. I answered as you asked. Now that we've worked together and formed a theory, perhaps you'd like to help me with the plumbing.
You're a dishonest hack. The points I raised were the same points I have raised half a dozen times already that I would expect any anglophone of at least average intelligence and attention span to be able to parse from my original post. It doesn't even require a terribly advanced level of prose literacy to be able to do so.

are you that james taylor lookalike?
He's one of my all-time favourites actually.

When you start on the plumbing,
could you post some pictures?
I've almost lost the will to live reading this thread,
but i'd like to see the plumbing problem.

rofl

Here's a nifty fact, the Earth was around for 4.5 billion years or so before there were any people, funny that Genesis never mentions that.

HectorDecimal



What we see here is gravity forming the star and possibly planets.

Yes.

Apply Occam's Razor to these two statements, which is the more likely according to Occam? God is simply not needed, nor is there anything in the image to indicate his presence. Gravity alone does a fine job all on it's own, so the razor slices your addition of a supernatural force all to shreds.

Neither qualifies as a logical option for either the way they are written.

Let's see if I'm understanding you void of grammar critique.

1. The picture makes no representation to a deity.

2. All we need is gravity to get from an absolute vacuum as in nothing, nottagotta, all the way to my responding to your post.

Check out the toroid field representing the constrictor point. I don't want to call this a singularity, because there are more than one concepts of a singularity, but constriction radius, likely approaching 0, would be a similar, deeper symmetry concentric to the geometry entailing the true surface of the Schwartschild Radius. What particle would fit through that consrtriction if we were to process entropy into enthalpy approaching infinity? What would be the enthalpy after passing through the constriction radius. The speed? The vector? How and how soon would the vector change. Why would it change and what would be the resultant trajectory?


back to the query:

Occam's Razor is a lazy bum! Why would it bother to make a universe in the first place when it could exist easier as a concept, never manifest at all? Assuming Occam's Razor just had to get it all going, the work would build something to take over the work as soon as possible. It would have to be a process or a robot that would go on eternally, otherwise Occam's Razor would have to get off it's lazy ass and do it all over. (String theory, per Susskind's own writings, fails here.) The simplest manner is to create an eternal being to do the work and once the dang thing works don't fix it.



You've provided no reason to think that, and many to doubt it.

That's a matter of opinion, but in reallity I'm getting warmed up. What sense does it make to really get going till you explore your audience and find out what questions they may have. I'll imagine that most of you folks just might have taken in a lecture or five.


If it has a jet the star is ignited already, if it is lit from within, the star is already ignited.

He get's the gong. For all to be squeezed sufficiently for such an effect to take place as in that toroid field, that as a guy who can paint a portrait of your whole family, retouch it with airbrush, by hand to look a lot like it were done in Poser, meaning good art, I can see the toroid geometry of the overall energy flow. For some reason, I tend to believe someone else on this planet can see that 3D geometry. Somewhere there was a spec of dark matter, dark energy or something at the least beginning that field, so that squeezer is right there and it should be able to be the effective "Maxwell's Demon" device he sought after. The energy enters near zero and emerges near infinity. I don't think Maxwell envisioned that, but Einstein may have. The toroid geometry is what I see. Maybe I'll take that NASA shot (thanx guys) and draw some lines through it... It should be a little different from the model, in that the geometry is really ditoroid, meaning imagine a cell splitting.



You don't even know the first thing about what a theory is, do you? A theory is not formed by nullification, nor can one call a hypothesis a theory if one produces nothing to support the theory. Now we know you have no scientific training whatsoever.

I think you just might have enough now. But yes, a hypothesis is a hypothesis till nullified whence it becomes a theory. A theory must be falable.

The hypothesi:

There is God.

The antithesis, or hyperthesis:

There is no god.

Theory 1: There is God

Theory 2: There is no god.

This is a simple example, of what constitutes a theory. What constitutes a Law is a proven theory. At first there was the hypothesis and antithesis of relativelty, sometimes thought to be quantum mechanics, so both become theories. Relativity is now a proven theory, so a law. Quantum mechanics has spawned many laws in thermodynamics. So now we have 2 theories established, let's discuss my theory and we'll decide whether to tag the antithesis theory onto it or do another thread.




Grumpy:cool:

I know you won't stop being grumpy, but I hope that's a bit more satisfying.

Do you think that that single page is the extent of the literature available on DG Tau B?

I thought you said you were an astrophysicist?

There is other literature available, regarding DG Tau B that Identifies it as a young (ignited) star, rather than a protostar.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...483L.127M
Not by this other NASA abstract. Young? Yes. Ignited? No.


Again, I thought you said you were an astrophysicist?

There are other lines of evidence that allow us to infer whether or not an object is capable of sustaining fusion.


Dishonest hack. Do not avoid the question. Address it.

Excuse Me? YOU can answer your own mean spirited questions till you man up to an apology.

My personal opinion on the existence or non existence of some 'thing' has no bearing, and no relevance to my considerations of the consequences of the existence of that 'thing'. I am perfectly capable of entertaining an idea, and deducing from that idea its logical consequences without accepting that idea.


You have yet to actually address anything I have raised in any depth.


You're a dishonest hack. The points I raised were the same points I have raised half a dozen times already that I would expect any anglophone of at least average intelligence and attention span to be able to parse from my original post. It doesn't even require a terribly advanced level of prose literacy to be able to do so.

I think that last blue line says it.

Here's a nifty fact, the Earth was around for 4.5 billion years or so before there were any people, funny that Genesis never mentions that.

Unfortunately, most don't read the whole book. It's really dry, so who can blame anyone? If you only read the first lesson in "Gravitation," you won't thoroughly be able to interpret what I'm explaining about that toroid field. The same is for the Bible. "Day" in Genesis is truly timeless because it means the same as "era." It's like "In those days, there were shepherds in the fields, watching over their flocks by night." We need to get away from the monkey trial.

Most understand that an era is a day for God.

Excuse Me? YOU can answer your own mean spirited questions till you man up to an apology.
At this point you are not in a position to demand apologies of anybody.

What you did was that height of fraud and intellectual dishonesty, I stand by my statement, and consider it to be demonstrated empericaly proven.

I asked you a perfectly reasonably question based on YOUR scenario.

IF Genesis gives the correct timeline1 AND we see god creating planets and stars using gravity2 THEN why does Genesis suggest god created gravity on the second day instead of the first3?

The first point (labeled 1) is your assertion.
The second point (labeled 2) is an observation, framed in terms of your paradigm based on the evidence you yourself have presented.
The third point (labeled 3) is a logical contradiction we are presented with when considering 1 and 2.

There is nothing mean spirited in any of this, it is observation combined with logic and reasoning. If it presents with a logical contradiction, it is because your hypothesis is flawed, and not internally consistent.

Get over it, man up, address the point honestly, and in good faith, and I will consider retracting my comments.

Until that point, the ball is in your court, and I will consider my assertion to be proven emperically. All you have ever had to do is address the point I have raised.

See? While I'm getting my hip waders on, someone fetches the "stick" for me. (Hopefully a fresh diaper for that poor baby... :D )

Hip waders = plumbing nightmare in real life :( (you wouldn't want this project and a plumber wants $15k to do it...)

As for do I think I know more than the HST team? That's a meaningless question? Let's say I believe I'm at least as educated about physics as they are.

And if you read the literature provided by NASA and by many other institutions, that ring of dust do not contain planets at all. In fact, they are clear to state the dust rings surrounding the young ignited stars in the Orion nebula are being blasted by nearby bigger stars which would make your suggestion in this thread (as well as the other thread) completely incorrect. In short, you are claiming there could be planets in there and NASA and everyone else are saying that there cannot be.

So please provide evidence that there are planets there and that they are forming before the stars form. Because every single expert studying this is contradicting you and Genesis.

I just might be able to discern some geodesics a bit better than even some of the HST team. Maybe....Let's see it then. Let's see you do what is considered particularly unpleasant astrophysics, ie combining plasma physics and general relativity. I'm versed in GR to postgrad level and I've some experience with fluid mechanics, you can't use the excuse "It'd be lost on you". Let's see you do more than just spout assertions and be evasive.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...483L.127M
Not by this other NASA abstract. Young? Yes. Ignited? No.

DG Tau B is a class II object.
EG:
herschel.esac.esa.int/Publ/2010/Goteborg/presentations/Podio.pdf
http://books.google.co.nz/books/about/Carbon_monoxide_in_disks_around_young_st.html?id=1 CFPHsj10FEC&redir_esc=y


In Class II YSOs, the cloud starts to clear, in part due to the intense light of the young star. Accretion slows even more. In the inner disk, planets may begin to form by accumulation—starting with clumps of dust, which may collide and merge, some growing in size, and others disintegrating. This third chapter lasts approximately 1 million years.
Source (http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/science_year_in_review/pdf/2007/progressive_star_formation_in_the_magellanic_cloud s.pdf&sa=U&ei=X0pET6fwKKyViAfT_ImUAw&ved=0CCYQFjAJ&usg=AFQjCNE7b5O0XEXjKTUb0BkJjZGxKbEitA)

The only thing I am uncertain of at this stageis whether the primary source of energy for the light is gravity or fusion. Either way, even if it is gravity that is the primary energy source, this is still light caused by gravity, not light before gravity as described in Genesis.

And if you read the literature provided by NASA and by many other institutions, that ring of dust do not contain planets at all. In fact, they are clear to state the dust rings surrounding the young ignited stars in the Orion nebula are being blasted by nearby bigger stars which would make your suggestion in this thread (as well as the other thread) completely incorrect. In short, you are claiming there could be planets in there and NASA and everyone else are saying that there cannot be.

So please provide evidence that there are planets there and that they are forming before the stars form. Because every single expert studying this is contradicting you and Genesis.



I did not say any of them contained planets that were in those examples. I showed a young star system that had a gas giant. That was dodged. I mentioned befoer that was only to introduce the page ad obviously I omitted it from this thread to reduce scope and confusion. I used them to depict essentially that we have these so far and that some of these are jets, others are proplyds, others are young star systems around an already ignited star. The DG tau B would, as stated, be the unignited collective proimordial matter we see collecting in a toroid shape to contract into a star. It would not be unreasonable to imagine that much of that incoming matter is largely composed of supercooled ice contracted through compression by intense gravity, likely dark matter impurities, as a seed, not unlike bubble nucleation in that it needs some impurity to grow larger. The bubble is solidification mechanics in reverse.

This view is strictly from the theoanaesthetic perspective. It actually predates my return to theism. For the most part, let's explore that star from the design perspective. How would you design a star that works out of that ditoroid geodesic function? That much we know.

I mean... have any of you shown any shots of DG tau B that show the star is ignited? Did you catch anything about the filters used to take the shots.

For whatever it's worth, I saw where the shutte was doing some work on the Hubble a couple years back. I was curious if any of you were aware of whether that was to install a more creative masking system? These new shots dodge the brighter areas far better than just a few years back.

arauca:


How can you be so positive and attempting to discredit an individual that offers a different view then yours

Up to the present post, I haven't tried to discredit him at all. Did you notice that most of my previous post consisted of questions? What I asked Hector to do was to explain his reasoning and any evidence for his hypothesis. Sadly, it appears that he hasn't added anything much to his initial claim at this point. But more on that below.


HectorDecimal:


I did not say there was no star. I said the star had not ignited.

Is a star a star before it ignites?



What is the Hubble team's explanation of the jets?

Similar to mine. Remind you that specualtion is present in all cases. The Hubble team are satellite people more than the people out here who examine the findings more extensively.

As Bell's post shows, their explanation is quite different to yours, not similar. They claim that there are stars in the dust clouds that have started nuclear fusion. You claim the stars are "unignited". If you can't tell the difference between their explanation and yours, I think you're in trouble.

But then a more disturbing possibility occurs to me - that you have looked at their explanations, but you didn't want to reveal information to me that is unfavourable to your position. And that means you're not really doing science at all.

The first thing any good scientist with an idea does is to try his utmost to knock down his own idea. Why? Reasons of honesty, for one. Also, self-preservation - if he doesn't do it and he is wrong, somebody else will inevitably do it for him, and he may even come out looking naive or incompetent.



How do you know the opaque areas are not just dust obscuring a star or some other object?

Good point. In this case, though, a keen eye can resolve the geometry of the gravitational field (assuming we are discussing the plasma jet) through inference. You can get a higher res shot at the site. I used smaller ones for browser compatibility courtesy.

You just do it all by eye then, do you? That doesn't seem very rigorous to me.


I'll see what I can do. I may actually have to scan in a page or two from a book and may not have time today, but Hold on to that question for a bit and I'll oblige.

No problem.



Why is the incoming material already luminous?

That's a good question that would lead any scientist to the chalk board, so to speak. For now let's just say "Gravity." What is gravity? Another subject. Tht too can shake some religious folks beliefs, because it may imply that God didn't create Himself, gravity did.

I think you can take it as read that I have a reasonable understanding of gravity. Please be more specific. Why is the incoming material self-luminous? And why does it look an awful lot like the material is reflecting light from a star masked by dust?

Also, on another point, I think you might want to decide fairly soon as to whether you're making a primarily religious claim here or a scientific one. If this is a science thread, then we can move it to one of the science subforums. If it is a religious discussion, then I don't really see the relevance of a detailed discussion of star formation, and I'll most likely bow out of the conversation.



Genesis is a creation myth story, not a science textbook.

We are in an area where we are to compare the two. That's what I'm doing.

I don't think Genesis mentions star formation in Orion.


The supreme court ruled [atheism] is [a religion]. Till that is overturned here in America, it is reduced to semantic refuge.

I'm not bound by your Supreme Court. But I agree we can drop the matter. You won't refer to it and I won't refer to it. Agreed? Whether atheism is a religion or not is an argument that we can have in a different thread if you like. Before you do that, though, please search some of the old threads titled "Is atheism a religion", so we don't rehash old arguments.


All of these shots can only show us what was happening at the time the photons started heading our way. We still do not have shots that make the "tea cup jump together again and back up onto the table." Everyone is guessing a bit.

I don't see the relevance of this statement. The issue here is what the images show, isn't it? How does the photon travel time have any relevant impact?


What the dust lane actually proves is that
1. the symmetry of the forces invovled in the plasma jet picture are toroid.[/quite]

Why toroid? Why not cylindrical? Also, how do you go from the symmetry of the images to the symmtery of the forces involved?

What forces do you believe are involved, by the way?

[quote]2. Those particles flowing in are solidified enough to have a reflective, yet possibly autolumination multiplexed, albedo.

I'm a little confused. Which particles are flowing in, and how do you know they are flowing in?

Also, what would the "autolumination" be due to, if it's an explanation? Previously you said "gravity", I think. I'd like a fuller explanation than that.


For what it's worth guys, I'm SYMPATHETIC to the atheist belief. I've been there. Done that. Dismissed it.

Off topic, perhaps, but what did you dismiss it in favour of?


I find it disgusting, though, when the dogmatic GIGO from ANY religion interferes with what would perhaps be defined better as a theoanaesthetic perspective. It's a meaningless grasp for a dopamine rush to slam the table and insist one belief or another is an absolute.

What is a "theoanaesthetic perspective"?


One fact. Letters between others of that era, describe that a fellow named Jesus, as (H)e is described did exist and was crucified.

Are you a Christian, then?


Some think Allister Crowley was God. I can't disprove that, but I can refuse to accept it.

Who is Allister Crowley?


This view is strictly from the theoanaesthetic perspective. It actually predates my return to theism.

Ok, I think I'm getting it now. You were atheist for a time, then you went "theoanaesthetic" (whatever that is) and now you're a theist again.

What brand of theist are you?


For the most part, let's explore that star from the design perspective. How would you design a star that works out of that ditoroid geodesic function? That much we know.

What is a ditoroid geodesic function?

You use a lot of complicated words.

HectorDecimal


Neither qualifies as a logical option for either the way they are written.

Let's see if I'm understanding you void of grammar critique.

1. The picture makes no representation to a deity.

2. All we need is gravity to get from an absolute vacuum as in nothing, nottagotta, all the way to my responding to your post.



What I was saying is that gravity explains the collapse of HYDROGEN GAS CLOUDS(with impurities, mostly Helium and a smidge of Lithium with trace amouts of all other elements)into stars, no supernatural stirring or magic hockus pokus needed. If a planet with the right conditions forms at the right distance from that star, then yes, gravity is all that is needed to produce you(that is, after all, how Earth was formed).


Check out the toroid field representing the constrictor point. I don't want to call this a singularity, because there are more than one concepts of a singularity, but constriction radius, likely approaching 0, would be a similar, deeper symmetry concentric to the geometry entailing the true surface of the Schwartschild Radius. What particle would fit through that consrtriction if we were to process entropy into enthalpy approaching infinity? What would be the enthalpy after passing through the constriction radius. The speed? The vector? How and how soon would the vector change. Why would it change and what would be the resultant trajectory?


This is pseudoscientific babble. Please enlighten us about what you think a Swartschild radius is.


Occam's Razor is a lazy bum! Why would it bother to make a universe in the first place when it could exist easier as a concept, never manifest at all? Assuming Occam's Razor just had to get it all going, the work would build something to take over the work as soon as possible. It would have to be a process or a robot that would go on eternally, otherwise Occam's Razor would have to get off it's lazy ass and do it all over. (String theory, per Susskind's own writings, fails here.) The simplest manner is to create an eternal being to do the work and once the dang thing works don't fix it.



This is damned stupid pseudoscientific babble. All Occam's Razor says is that if you have two competing explanations the simplest one is almost always the correct one, as I demonstrated in the two statements at the beginning of my post(IE gravity is sufficient to explain the collapse of gas clouds into stars, to which you added a supernatural force). And a god is not a more parsimonious explanation as you then have to explain where such a being comes from. You don't even understand Occam, you are not a scientist or you would know that Occam is not a cause of anything, it just establishes parsimony in scientific explanations(IE do not introduce unnecessary entities, better known as the KISS(keep it simple, stupid)principle).



You've provided no reason to think that, and many to doubt it.
That's a matter of opinion, but in reallity I'm getting warmed up. What sense does it make to really get going till you explore your audience and find out what questions they may have. I'll imagine that most of you folks just might have taken in a lecture or five.

I've given many lectures myself, you're fooling no one, you're a fake(at best).


He get's the gong. For all to be squeezed sufficiently for such an effect to take place as in that toroid field, that as a guy who can paint a portrait of your whole family, retouch it with airbrush, by hand to look a lot like it were done in Poser, meaning good art, I can see the toroid geometry of the overall energy flow. For some reason, I tend to believe someone else on this planet can see that 3D geometry. Somewhere there was a spec of dark matter, dark energy or something at the least beginning that field, so that squeezer is right there and it should be able to be the effective "Maxwell's Demon" device he sought after. The energy enters near zero and emerges near infinity. I don't think Maxwell envisioned that, but Einstein may have. The toroid geometry is what I see. Maybe I'll take that NASA shot (thanx guys) and draw some lines through it... It should be a little different from the model, in that the geometry is really ditoroid, meaning imagine a cell splitting.

More babble about things you know nothing about, think donuts with the star being the mass growing in the hole.


I think you just might have enough now. But yes, a hypothesis is a hypothesis till nullified whence it becomes a theory. A theory must be falable.

The hypothesi:

There is God.

The antithesis, or hyperthesis:

There is no god.

Theory 1: There is God

Theory 2: There is no god.

This is a simple example, of what constitutes a theory. What constitutes a Law is a proven theory. At first there was the hypothesis and antithesis of relativelty, sometimes thought to be quantum mechanics, so both become theories. Relativity is now a proven theory, so a law. Quantum mechanics has spawned many laws in thermodynamics. So now we have 2 theories established, let's discuss my theory and we'll decide whether to tag the antithesis theory onto it or do another thread.


No, it does not even resemble a discription of a theory, might I point you to Professor Popper and the Scientific method?

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis or model to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature(archaitic). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified(it is falsified).

And now you have finally attended a scientific lecture, though it remains to be seen whether any of it sinks in. Notice how the word nullified is completely missing from this explanation, that's because it is pure non-sense and meaningless in this context. Your statement that there is a god is not a theory, it is an unevidenced hypothesis at best, as would be a statement that there is no god(a statement I do not make). But Occam's Razor tells us not to add entities that are not in evidence and are superflourous to the needs of the explanation. Gravity explains star formation without the need of additional speculations.


It would not be unreasonable to imagine that much of that incoming matter is largely composed of supercooled ice contracted through compression by intense gravity

Yes, that would be highly unreasonable, given that the vast majority of the gas we see in such clouds(look up spectroscopic observations)is elemental Hydrogen and Helium with only traces of the Oxygen needed to form ice. You really know nothing about stars and how they form.

Goddidit is a pretty good sign of a Creationist troll trying to twist science to justify his preconceived beliefs, that's where you stand in this discussion until you start acting otherwise. (And that is as politely as I can express that conclusion).

Grumpy:cool:

Is a star a star before it ignites?



Is a star a star after it collapses?

Is a star a star after it collapses?

Distraction and misdirection.

More dishonesty.

Distraction and misdirection.

More dishonesty.

Wrong. As usual.


It's a legitimate question with a reason. The answer to this question is the answer to his.

It continues afterward.

HectorDecimal



What I was saying is that gravity explains the collapse of HYDROGEN GAS CLOUDS(with impurities, mostly Helium and a smidge of Lithium with trace amouts of all other elements)into stars, no supernatural stirring or magic hockus pokus needed. If a planet with the right conditions forms at the right distance from that star, then yes, gravity is all that is needed to produce you(that is, after all, how Earth was formed).

Hmmm... sounds like what I was describing, with some parts left out.



This is pseudoscientific babble. Please enlighten us about what you think a Swartschild radius is.

Go fish in wiki. I didn't start this to be your homework paper. I'll explain that what I meant by its surface geometry is that such might be turbulent or grainy or streated, etcetera.



This is damned stupid pseudoscientific babble. All Occam's Razor says is that if you have two competing explanations the simplest one is almost always the correct one, as I demonstrated in the two statements at the beginning of my post(IE gravity is sufficient to explain the collapse of gas clouds into stars, to which you added a supernatural force). And a god is not a more parsimonious explanation as you then have to explain where such a being comes from. You don't even understand Occam, you are not a scientist or you would know that Occam is not a cause of anything, it just establishes parsimony in scientific explanations(IE do not introduce unnecessary entities, better known as the KISS(keep it simple, stupid)principle).



I've given many lectures myself, you're fooling no one, you're a fake(at best).

Considering that you have sidestepped the equivocation questions associated with that toroid model, I'd tend to not believe you have given lectures. Anyone can say that if they are a 3rd grader. It being true is another issue. You tend to point out that YOU are the fake here. Let's cut to the chase. You're a high school frshman looking for a science paper, No?



More babble about things you know nothing about, think donuts with the star being the mass growing in the hole.

Are you saying you can't imagine betond 2D? Gosh... I wonder how Walt Disney would get Grumpy the Dwarf to think in 4D.



No, it does not even resemble a discription of a theory, might I point you to Professor Popper and the Scientific method?

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis or model to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature(archaitic). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified(it is falsified).

And now you have finally attended a scientific lecture, though it remains to be seen whether any of it sinks in. Notice how the word nullified is completely missing from this explanation, that's because it is pure non-sense and meaningless in this context. Your statement that there is a god is not a theory, it is an unevidenced hypothesis at best, as would be a statement that there is no god(a statement I do not make). But Occam's Razor tells us not to add entities that are not in evidence and are superflourous to the needs of the explanation. Gravity explains star formation without the need of additional speculations.



Yes, that would be highly unreasonable, given that the vast majority of the gas we see in such clouds(look up spectroscopic observations)is elemental Hydrogen and Helium with only traces of the Oxygen needed to form ice. You really know nothing about stars and how they form.

Goddidit is a pretty good sign of a Creationist troll trying to twist science to justify his preconceived beliefs, that's where you stand in this discussion until you start acting otherwise. (And that is as politely as I can express that conclusion).

And there you go again with the disruptive bologna. you make unimaginative, feeble critique about something you can't understand. I'm not obligated to go further with you till you answer my legitimate questions about that toroid model. If you can't maybe someone else can.

Grumpy:cool:

Here's the definitions of hypothesis and such, links to the scientific process as "online" describes it. You kids don't seem that familiar with books. I learned from books, not a laptop. Yes. Old dude. Old school.


plural hy·poth·e·ses \-ˌsēz\
Definition of HYPOTHESIS
An unproved theory, proposition, etcetera, tntatively accepted to explain certain facts or (working hypothesis) to provide a basis for further investigation, argument, etcetera.

Theory

1. An idea or plan of the way to do something.
2. A systematic statement of priciples involved
3.A formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree
4. that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than its practice.
5.(popularly) A mere conjecture, guess, etcetera.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Null_hypothesis

scientific process

http://www.windows2universe.org/people/scientific_process.html

Antithesis or alternative hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_hypothesis

SHow us what you KNOW guys, not how well you can avoid my questions. If I ask something it is to draw the answer out in stages. For one this tends to obfuscate something that a student can simply c&p for his homework.

Grumpy wants us to think he's a professor. I don't buy it.

What is a "theoanaesthetic perspective"?



Break the words down. Look at thermanaesthetic, for example. We need a term that neutralizes science from both theism and atheism. Rmember science is stupid like our computers.

I recommend you compose offline. Review everything and reduce your posts to a reasonable discussion. Bells example was just that. A short, concise query. The response was a short, concise answer, or rebuttal.

When you overwhelm with fluff, your paper gets rejected because you aren't following the process asked for. I know instructors who would have marked an F on your tirade and handed it back to you in a paper sack.

In the very early life of a main sequence star, there is a brief period during which it is actually brighter than when it fires up and goes nuclear.


A star spends a brief childhood as a protostar, a star powered purely by its own gravitational contraction. In this prologue to its life on the main sequence, the star achieves hydrostatic equilibrium, where its internal pressure fully counteracts its self-gravity. The protostar begins its evolution to the main sequence at a luminosity far above its main-sequence luminosity, but with a photospheric temperature that is not much smaller than the main-sequence value. On a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, which is a plot of a star's luminosity against the star's photospheric temperature, a protostar evolves along a line of nearly-constant temperature and falling luminosity. This track, which is nearly-vertical on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, is called a Hayashi track.

from http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/Protostars.html

The period is brief, only a few hundred years.
But long enough for the growing of a few fruit trees on nearby planets, should God be so minded.
I'm not sure this lets Hector off the hook, though.
I don't know what the diameter of the sun was at this stage.

Being inside the sun would not be good for fruit trees.

In the very early life of a main sequence star, there is a brief period during which it is actually brighter than when it fires up and goes nuclear.


A star spends a brief childhood as a protostar, a star powered purely by its own gravitational contraction. In this prologue to its life on the main sequence, the star achieves hydrostatic equilibrium, where its internal pressure fully counteracts its self-gravity. The protostar begins its evolution to the main sequence at a luminosity far above its main-sequence luminosity, but with a photospheric temperature that is not much smaller than the main-sequence value. On a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, which is a plot of a star's luminosity against the star's photospheric temperature, a protostar evolves along a line of nearly-constant temperature and falling luminosity. This track, which is nearly-vertical on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, is called a Hayashi track.

from http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/Protostars.html

The period is brief, only a few hundred years.
But long enough for the growing of a few fruit trees on nearby planets, should God be so minded.
I'm not sure this lets Hector off the hook, though.
I don't know what the diameter of the sun was at this stage.

Being inside the sun would not be good for fruit trees.

Good post Capt.

Keep in mind that our eyes on those stars has only been for a couple decades at best. It will actually take hundreds of years for our space based telescopes to verify even what you mentioned, but those are very good YOUNG theories. You basically depicted the concise answer to the toroid field illustration. Ther's a lot more to that, but you seem to grasp it.

Let's stay to theo-anaesthetic, or neutral discussion. It's tough to leave the God Particle" out of it all when that keeps getting introduced back in. I'm really wanting everyone to see how that gravitational field pulling all that matter together comes about in the first place.

How does all that primordial matter accrete so it can be accreted collectively at large? If we work through that question, the rest will go smoother.

BTW... wish me luck on that plumbing today. When I have it finished, I'll take a shot of it. By finished, I mean worthy of critique, as in in the system is finished. Today is just a bypass to get through the winter, if it can be called winter.

Break the words down. Look at thermanaesthetic, for example. We need a term that neutralizes science from both theism and atheism. Rmember science is stupid like our computers.

I recommend you compose offline. Review everything and reduce your posts to a reasonable discussion. Bells example was just that. A short, concise query. The response was a short, concise answer, or rebuttal.

When you overwhelm with fluff, your paper gets rejected because you aren't following the process asked for. I know instructors who would have marked an F on your tirade and handed it back to you in a paper sack.

You are still not answering the questions or providing the examples and evidence requested of you to back up your claims. James R asked you several questions pertinent to the claims you have made in this thread and you have not addressed them at all. As have others.

Telling people to go and 'fish in wiki' or to look up the answers to respond to the questions asked of you is not sufficient. If you make any claim or statement, you need to be in a position to back it up. It is up to you to do so, not others to do your work for you in this thread.

You have been avoiding questions like they are the plague. In short, it is time to put up or shut up.. In other words, cite your examples that the images you posted support Genesis or shut up about it. Yes, it is that simple. Thus far, nothing you have provided supports your position, quite the contrary. The evidence we have provided that shows the truth and completely contradicts your unsupported claims tend to show that you are, well, pulling the whole 'it supports Genesis' out of your proverbial backside (insert joke about your plumbing here)..

Good post Capt.

Keep in mind that our eyes on those stars has only been for a couple decades at best. It will actually take hundreds of years for our space based telescopes to verify even what you mentioned, but those are very good YOUNG theories. You basically depicted the concise answer to the toroid field illustration. Ther's a lot more to that, but you seem to grasp it.

Let's stay to theo-anaesthetic, or neutral discussion. It's tough to leave the God Particle" out of it all when that keeps getting introduced back in. I'm really wanting everyone to see how that gravitational field pulling all that matter together comes about in the first place.

How does all that primordial matter accrete so it can be accreted collectively at large? If we work through that question, the rest will go smoother.


This thread and it's predecessor would have made three good threads, had you not tried to combine the subjects.

The question of how a rational believer can square his religious belief in a personal God with the knowledge gained through science is one subject.

The early life of a main sequence star as a Protostar is another good subject.

The whys and wherefores of the chronological sequence of Genesis is a third good subject.

Put together, they are a mess. I think you know that.
Why not hold up your hand and admit it?
Good luck with your plumbing.

Is a star a star after it collapses?

Yes.

The basic definition of a star is it being self-luminous. A protostar or large gas giant, having not begun fusion reactions, do not produce their own light, so are not stars. Main sequence stars as well as their death ends do. Certainly white dwarfs or neutron stars do. A black hole questionably may produce something in the interior, but nothing can get out, so it's an anomaly, but would fall under the star category still.

Break the words down. Look at thermanaesthetic, for example. We need a term that neutralizes science from both theism and atheism. Rmember science is stupid like our computers.

But isnt viable, is it? Science, based on methological naturalism, is inherently non-theistic - maybe agnostic, maybe atheistic - but it seems that theoaestheism is not possible at all - for science must either test and then put on hold, confirm or falsify theological claims. Non-fallisifiable claims naturally are precluded from authority of assertions for reality since they offer no means for certainty. Ergo, theistic science is not possible - therefore science must be non-theistic. The uncoupling of science and theology requires either that theology stand up to the rigourious demands of science or theological claims fall back to being opinions or concepts, not truths and beliefs.

You can see why there is friction between science and religion today, with science continuously filling in the places where religion happily resided and with religion goes theism. It is not wonder that atheism wasn't popular in the 1600s or that today is the time when non-believers have reached 1.3 billion in number and climbing.

You are still not answering the questions or providing the examples and evidence requested of you to back up your claims. James R asked you several questions pertinent to the claims you have made in this thread and you have not addressed them at all. As have others.

Telling people to go and 'fish in wiki' or to look up the answers to respond to the questions asked of you is not sufficient. If you make any claim or statement, you need to be in a position to back it up. It is up to you to do so, not others to do your work for you in this thread.

You have been avoiding questions like they are the plague. In short, it is time to put up or shut up.. In other words, cite your examples that the images you posted support Genesis or shut up about it. Yes, it is that simple. Thus far, nothing you have provided supports your position, quite the contrary. The evidence we have provided that shows the truth and completely contradicts your unsupported claims tend to show that you are, well, pulling the whole 'it supports Genesis' out of your proverbial backside (insert joke about your plumbing here)..

Seconded, for what its worth. Anyone else?

Here's my view of where this thread's argument stands at the moment.

1. Accretion disks might have formed around protostars before fusion ignition has occurred. That might very well be a defensible assertion. But since Hector wants to argue that his Hubble photographs actually illustrate this, he still needs to make a convincing case for why they don't illustrate planetary accretion disks around bright young stars.

2. Planets will have already formed in those disks. That's a major component of Hector's ultimate conclusion, so he can't just introduce the existence of planets as a speculative premise. The presence of extrasolar planets in these disks needs to actually be demonstrated. The relevance of the Hubble photographs in doing that needs to be explained.

3. The hypothetical planets will already be cool, have solid surfaces and water oceans, and will be suitable for life. The early formative stage in which protoplanets are ceaselessly bombarded by small and large planetesmals will have had to have already ceased, and ceased long enough prior to fusion ignition of the star that conditions would have stabilized and become conducive to life. The relevance of the Hubble photographs in reaching that conclusion needs to be explained.

4. It isn't unreasonable to assume that advanced, highly evolved lifeforms may already exist on these planets, before the star's fusion ignition. That's apparently just a gratuitous assumption kind of tossed in there. It needs lots of argument that it hasn't even begun to receive.

5. All of this validates the truth of the Genesis chronology in the Bible. That presents its own set of problems that need to be addressed.

5a. Genesis is talking about the Earth, not about accretion disks in Orion. The writers of the Genesis creation account don't seem to have even been aware of the existence of any planets other than Earth, nor were they aware that the stars were anything more than little lights up on the nighttime surface of the sky. So the Hubble astronomical observations need to be brought home so to speak, and some explanation provided of how they are relevant to our Earth.

5b. Genesis says that the Earth was the first thing created, which would make it the oldest object in the universe. So we need an explanation of how talk of pre-planetary accretion wouldn't constitute a contradiction of Genesis all by itself, if it was applied to the Earth.

5c. We still need a much fuller account of how the Genesis chronology can be squared both with mainstream scientific cosmology and the history of life here on Earth. Many astronomical objects are observed which appear to be older than the Earth. And simple prokaryotes appear to have been the earliest forms of life on Earth, appearing in the oceans long after the Sun had ignited. Flowering plants on land appeared much later.

Good post Capt.

Keep in mind that our eyes on those stars has only been for a couple decades at best. It will actually take hundreds of years for our space based telescopes to verify even what you mentioned, but those are very good YOUNG theories. You basically depicted the concise answer to the toroid field illustration. Ther's a lot more to that, but you seem to grasp it.
No it won't, because the theory makes predictions about things such as emissions at IR wavelengths which can, and have, been confirmed by observation - but you should know that given your claimed expertise in astrophysics, because that's how YSO's are classified. We measure the IR radiation, calculate a ratio, and that, when compared with our models and predictions gives us information about what stage of development the object is at.


How does all that primordial matter accrete so it can be accreted collectively at large? If we work through that question, the rest will go smoother.
Gravity.

wrong. As usual.


It's a legitimate question with a reason. The answer to this question is the answer to his.

It continues afterward.

roflmao

Seconded, for what its worth. Anyone else?

Motion carried.

Here's my view of where this thread's argument stands at the moment.

1. Accretion disks might have formed around protostars before fusion ignition has occurred. That might very well be a defensible assertion. But since Hector wants to argue that his Hubble photographs actually illustrate this, he still needs to make a convincing case for why they don't illustrate planetary accretion disks around bright young stars.

I think you are confusing what is said. I have not referred to the images as examples of what I'm deriving from the various branches of physics to be going on. Something else, that some may not be taking into consideration is that not all stars build a planetary system. They live quick lives and explode to add to the millieu of primordial matter.

2. Planets will have already formed in those disks. That's a major component of Hector's ultimate conclusion, so he can't just introduce the existence of planets as a speculative premise. The presence of extrasolar planets in these disks needs to actually be demonstrated. The relevance of the Hubble photographs in doing that needs to be explained.

Pretty much the answer here is deerived from the one above.

3. The hypothetical planets will already be cool, have solid surfaces and water oceans, and will be suitable for life. The early formative stage in which protoplanets are ceaselessly bombarded by small and large planetesmals will have had to have already ceased, and ceased long enough prior to fusion ignition of the star that conditions would have stabilized and become conducive to life. The relevance of the Hubble photographs in reaching that conclusion needs to be explained.

I'm going to reference the toroid model again. We need to look at the forces surrounding that and, because of DG tau B being used as an example, we need to discuss the forces at the center of that model. The images are not going to prove one way or the other. I don't think we have ANY shots from ANY of the telescopes that prove one way or the other. I'm using them as examples of (DG tau B) the forces surrounding a forming star and the influx of matter. The first shot pointed out depicts a luminous disk surrounding an unignited star.

4. It isn't unreasonable to assume that advanced, highly evolved lifeforms may already exist on these planets, before the star's fusion ignition. That's apparently just a gratuitous assumption kind of tossed in there. It needs lots of argument that it hasn't even begun to receive.

The toroid force issue first.

5. All of this validates the truth of the Genesis chronology in the Bible. That presents its own set of problems that need to be addressed.

Same as above

5a. Genesis is talking about the Earth, not about accretion disks in Orion. The writers of the Genesis creation account don't seem to have even been aware of the existence of any planets other than Earth, nor were they aware that the stars were anything more than little lights up on the nighttime surface of the sky. So the Hubble astronomical observations need to be brought home so to speak, and some explanation provided of how they are relevant to our Earth.

theoanaesthetic approach first. The rest will hang on that.

5b. Genesis says that the Earth was the first thing created, which would make it the oldest object in the universe. So we need an explanation of how talk of pre-planetary accretion wouldn't constitute a contradiction of Genesis all by itself, if it was applied to the Earth.

Back to twisting (perverting) what I have actually stated?

5c. We still need a much fuller account of how the Genesis chronology can be squared both with mainstream scientific cosmology and the history of life here on Earth. Many astronomical objects are observed which appear to be older than the Earth. And simple prokaryotes appear to have been the earliest forms of life on Earth, appearing in the oceans long after the Sun had ignited. Flowering plants on land appeared much later.


Leave Genesis out of it for now. Let's do the Occam's Razor part. Occam's Razor is a brainless bum. The path of least resistance is zero to zero.

The forces around the toroid, in fact a ditoroid, need to be demonstarted. If you don't understand the forces there, we cannot dioscuss the validity of the further aspects of the hypothesis/theory. How did that gravitational totoid field get there in the first place? Not good enough to say it came from old stars. We are discussing the original stars.

Could you break a rule Hector, and define Ditoroid for me?

Di as in dihedral, toroid as in donut.

DI -TOROID

I mentioned similar to a cell splitting. In reality we should define it an eccentrically eliptical ditoroid. (EED might take out the mouithful a bit... :) )


I have on hip waders on a la mud up to my calves, plus as I type this. For the time being I managed to get the submersible pump in deeper, so it's a matter of time till the next mud bath comes into focus. All to get at a ruptured PVC pipe. It didnt just break a glue bond, it split the pipe and a couple others down the center. I'm thinking a nice galvanized bypass, will prevent that from happening again.

Easter Lillies in February.


Back to the thread. Does that explain the ditoroid and how the basic generatrix works out?

HectorDecimal

If you can't dazzle them with your wit(and you can't), then try to baffle them with Bull Shit(which is what this made up crap is).


This is pseudoscientific babble. Please enlighten us about what you think a Swartschild radius is.


Go fish in wiki. I didn't start this to be your homework paper. I'll explain that what I meant by its surface geometry is that such might be turbulent or grainy or streated, etcetera.

Translation, "Since I've been caught with my BS hanging in the breeze, I'll just refuse to discuss it anymore." A Swartschild radius is the radius for a mass where it will collapse into a Black Hole. Now let's plug that into the Babble you posted and see how much sense it makes...


Check out the toroid field representing the constrictor point. I don't want to call this a singularity, because there are more than one concepts of a singularity, but constriction radius, likely approaching 0, would be a similar, deeper symmetry concentric to the geometry entailing the true surface of the Schwartschild Radiusradius for a mass where it will collapse into a Black Hole. What particle would fit through that consrtriction if we were to process entropy into enthalpy approaching infinity? What would be the enthalpy after passing through the constriction radius. The speed? The vector? How and how soon would the vector change. Why would it change and what would be the resultant trajectory?

Nope, it's still pseudoscientific babble. A few sciency words scattered through a paragraph don't give it any scientific veracity, the idiot who trys that doesn't get smarter in the process. What exactly is the true surface of a radius?


Considering that you have sidestepped the equivocation questions associated with that toroid model, I'd tend to not believe you have given lectures. Anyone can say that if they are a 3rd grader. It being true is another issue. You tend to point out that YOU are the fake here. Let's cut to the chase. You're a high school frshman looking for a science paper, No?

No, I am a 60 yr old ex High School Physics and Chemistry teacher(retired due to disability)who knows baffling BS when he sees it. I can also recognize a Creationist pseudoscientist in a darkened room just by the smell:fart:


And there you go again with the disruptive bologna. you make unimaginative, feeble critique about something you can't understand. I'm not obligated to go further with you till you answer my legitimate questions about that toroid model. If you can't maybe someone else can.

What legitamate questions, you've not made any coherent statements about anything, much less asked any cogent questions. I think this thread is ripe for the cesspool.

And you still have not addressed this bon mot...



It would not be unreasonable to imagine that much of that incoming matter is largely composed of supercooled ice contracted through compression by intense gravity ”
Yes, that would be highly unreasonable, given that the vast majority of the gas we see in such clouds(look up spectroscopic observations)is elemental Hydrogen and Helium with only traces of the Oxygen needed to form ice. You really know nothing about stars and how they form.


This alone tells us YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT STAR FORMATION. You are a Creationist Troll.


Grumpy wants us to think he's a professor. I don't buy it.

30+ years of being one certainly has a way of convincing one that one is one, don't you think?:itold: Your opinion on the matter is immaterial.

Grumpy:cool:

Captain Kremmen


Could you break a rule Hector, and define Ditoroid for me?

It's a made up word meaning "pseudoscientific BS" Or bent donut. I guess we now know why Hectors waders are kept so handy, he's used to wading in crap of his own making. You can get a ditoroidial(dual toroid)transformer, but we aren't talking electronics here. Don't believe me, Google it.

Grumpy:cool:

Grumpy, you can see HD is just spewing out buzzwords left, right and centre because I asked him to actually do the geodesic calculations he claimed he could do better than those working in astrophysics and he ignored me. Why? Probably because I pointed out I'm versed in GR and he realises he isn't going to be able to get away with just making up nonsense equations. Hence he's sticking with nonsense waffle.

HD, you complain about how others would have their papers returned for poor writing style but you'd be thrown off the course for the nonsense you spout. Time and again you try to present yourself as an engineer familiar with science and time and again you show you're not. Remember, numerous people here are engineers or scientists or mathematicians, in a professional capacity. We know what real informed discussion looks like and a fair few of us have actually been on the teaching side of things and know a BS'er trying to evade questions they know they can't answer.

If you think you're honestly coming out with coherent stuff then you're grossly ignorant of science. If you're knowingly being dishonest and trolling for lols then you need to really take a look at your life and how you spend your time.

Of course you could step up and justify your claims about geodesics in such stellar systems. Personally I very much enjoy talking about the Einstein field equations, a decade of mathematics will do that to a person...

Captain Kremmen



It's a made up word meaning "pseudoscientific BS" Or bent donut. I guess we now know why Hectors waders are kept so handy, he's used to wading in crap of his own making. You can get a ditoroidial(dual toroid)transformer, but we aren't talking electronics here. Don't believe me, Google it.



So it's a word but it's not a word? :DI guess somehow with your GREAT scientific mind you failed to realize that the transformer type is based upon the discription of it s GEOMETRY? ROFLMAO!! :D

Of course the transformer has nothing to do with fields. Nobody would ever want to proselytize you to believe that.:D

HectorDecimal


So it's a word but it's not a word?

A made up word is still a word, but it is a word without any meaning in this context.


I guess somehow with your GREAT scientific mind you failed to realize that the transformer type is based upon the discription of it s GEOMETRY?

I have a relatively mediocre mind, scientifically(for example I'm very dyslexic when it comes to math). But 30+ years of teaching has given me a very good BS detector, and you peg it and bend the needle around the stop.


Of course the transformer has nothing to do with fields. Nobody would ever want to proselytize you to believe that.

But that is exactly what you have attempted to do. Be more careful next time while surfing for sciency words to put in your posts. Like Swartschild Radius, or claiming it is supercooled ice that collapses into stars, or made up concepts like Ditoroid(bent donut?)

aaqucnaona


Seconded, for what its worth. Anyone else?

All in favor of the motion to move this crap to the Cesspool where it belongs say "Aye".

Aye. Motion carried, call the janitor, tell him to bring a big wheelbarrow and a shovel.

Grumpy:cool:

HectorDecimal



A made up word is still a word, but it is a word without any meaning in this context.



I have a relatively mediocre mind, scientifically(for example I'm very dyslexic when it comes to math). But 30+ years of teaching has given me a very good BS detector, and you peg it and bend the needle around the stop.



But that is exactly what you have attempted to do. Be more careful next time while surfing for sciency words to put in your posts. Like Swartschild Radius, or claiming it is supercooled ice that collapses into stars, or made up concepts like Ditoroid(bent donut?)

aaqucnaona



All in favor of the motion to move this crap to the Cesspool where it belongs say "Aye".

Aye. Motion carried, call the janitor, tell him to bring a big wheelbarrow and a shovel.





Grumpy I don't believe you teach anything to anyone. It's a shame you are so filled with hatred and that you have chosen me as a target. I should be like some here who threaten to slap me and send my A(nimal) Team over to invade your home and while you're snoring away next to Dopey and Sneezy littel Ninja Squeeker Kitty would sit on your face and leave a deposit... :D of course you'll probably just be dreaming about eating a fuzzy little donut...

Di-toroid is a geometric configuration. As I depicted, one such configuration is like 2 cells splitting, which is synonomous to the DG tau B image and properly describes the geometry of that forming star's gravitational geodesics.

...and Squeeker is a big black kitty :bugeye:

HectorDecimal


Grumpy I don't believe you teach anything to anyone.

Teachers don't teach, students learn. Even the best teacher can not teach a donkey or jackass to do sums, whereas a good student can help even the best teacher learn a thing or two. I no longer am an employee of the public school system and I've obviously failed to help you learn anything.


Squeeker Kitty would sit on your face and leave a deposit

I'm quite sure Squeeker would leave a deposit when he first enters my house when Boots(my 50+ pound Rotweiller)sees a chance for a midnight snack. He might even leave a scrap for Cricket, my 7 pound Chihuahua(they get along like siblings, even though both know Cricket's in charge). I sleep very well at night.


Di-toroid is a geometric configuration.

...that has no relivance to the torus around a protostar which is simply a rotating cloud of gas and dust, no further complications are needed to understand the process and just serve to unnecessarily obscure and complicate that simple process. Leave the details to those with the education and equipment to understand it. You don't.

Grumpy:cool:

HectorDecimal is just another baiting, creationist troll.

We're all familiar with the type.

:shrug:

Wow, Hd is banned. Guess the predictions were right afterall.

Wow, Hd is banned. Guess the predictions were right afterall.

Hector was banned because not only did he misrepresent the images he posted in this thread, he then lied and said that NASA apparently held similar findings to what he had claimed in this thread. When confronted by this [that NASA held a completely different position], he refused to address it, claimed he knew as much as NASA's Hubble Team and then started to make up words.

If that is not a clear example of trolling, I honestly do not know what is. In the meantime, let us hope that his dog eats his computer like they apparently ate his diplomas (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2904422&postcount=1).

See hector? I let you know way ahead of time that lying would result in you being marginalized... and well that has just happened.

Wow, Hd is banned. Guess the predictions were right afterall.

Where was that predicted in Genesis?

HectorDecimal:


Is a star a star after it collapses?

You answered my question with a question. Please try again.


Break the words down. Look at thermanaesthetic, for example.

Are you saying you can't define the terms you're using yourself?

Are you sending me off on a wild goose chase to try to imagine what you might be talking about?

Sorry, I'm not playing that game.
---

I note at this point that the above two quotes were your only substantive responses to the content of my post #41, above. This is a poor effort from you. If you're unable to answer a few simple questions asking you to explain what you mean and to justify your hypothesis then things don't bode well for your hypothesis's viability.

Try again, and see if you can do any better. Hopefully, a bit of time off has allowed you more time to think.


I recommend you compose offline. Review everything and reduce your posts to a reasonable discussion. Bells example was just that. A short, concise query. The response was a short, concise answer, or rebuttal.

My post #41 consisted largely of a number of short, concise queries directed to you.

It's not my fault if you have a limited attention span.


When you overwhelm with fluff, your paper gets rejected because you aren't following the process asked for. I know instructors who would have marked an F on your tirade and handed it back to you in a paper sack.

What have you provided so far, other than fluff? You avoid concise, direct questions like the plague.

Also, I don't think 'tirade' means what you think it means.

Maybe he meant ditirade.

Anyway, He can't answer questions.
He's been banned for not answering questions.
I fear we are never going to find out what happened with the plumbing.

Captain Kremmen



It's a made up word meaning "pseudoscientific BS" Or bent donut. I guess we now know why Hectors waders are kept so handy, he's used to wading in crap of his own making. You can get a ditoroidial(dual toroid)transformer, but we aren't talking electronics here. Don't believe me, Google it.

Grumpy:cool:

I couldn't find another example of the word being used.
Dual toroid, yes. Do you mean something like this unusual amplifier?
http://www.spaennare.se/K8060/image6i.jpg

That would be two toroids side by side.
How are your Toroids situated in relation to each other Hector?
Is one higher than the other?

Where was that predicted in Genesis?

A few of the experience members of this forum predicted his ban on his second day here - you know, after the hubble proves genesis and I am a creation scientist and dog ate diplomas and stuff.

Maybe a few words from the dog would be appropriate.
He has all the diplomas.

In fact. Here he is now.

Hector's dog:
Woof Woof Wuf Wuf Diwoof Woof Woof.

Let me put that into my google translator....................

Sorry. No luck. t's come up with:
"Did you mean: Woof Woof Wuf Wuf Woof Woof Woof?

Anyone speak Dog?

Added later. A dog translator has sent me the translation. Thanks DT!
It means:
"My master is quite right about ditoroids.
He's really annoyed about being banned, because he behaved perfectly.
And could I have proper meat in future not that horrible canned stuff"

http://www.bing.com/search?q=DI-TOROID&pc=ZUGO&form=ZGAIDF

take your pick.

I recently modeled an example of the field around the forming star. I have to import it to this machine and reduce it for the board...

probably later today.

HectorDecimal

You obviously are of the erronious opinion that you have clarified some point. You have obviously not learned a thing in your off time. If remaining on this forum is your goal I suggest a different approach, starting with dropping this topic like a hot rock. A large portion of being able to win an argument is being able to recognize when you have lost one. You've lost this one and nothing you have shown yourself capable of will change that.

Grumpy:cool:

A large portion of being able to win an argument is being able to recognize when you have lost one.

A large portion of being able to win an argument is the ability to present a clear, coherent and well-evidenced argument in the first place.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4540&stc=1&d=1330273698

This is what I'm representing as a DITOROID or DIROROIDAL field. Obviously if this discussion is a new monkey trial, new terminology will result. It is an appropriate and concise description of 3 dimensional geometry. This would be the shape of the field accreting the material. The field would be extremely eccentric, though elliptical. There are theories published suggesting the field may originate in dark matter and that it exists in the cores of stars.

Yazata


A large portion of being able to win an argument is the ability to present a clear, coherent and well-evidenced argument in the first place.

Which HectorDecimal has shown so far to not be within his capability, pretty pictures included.

Grumpy:cool:

Yazata



Which HectorDecimal has shown so far to not be within his capability, pretty pictures included.

Grumpy:cool:

You have the right to blieve anything you want Grumpy. I have the right to disbelieve anything I want.

I have the right to believe you are not remotely qualified to comment technically or scientifically about the field shown above.

If we can't get beyond discussing this field geometry, then how can we discuss the deeper meaning of why all that material heading into DG tau B's center just might do that and how that process just might make some of that material luminesce.

There, in #83, is a pictorial description of a field that would also process those jets till that dust alley is far more dense than what is seen. That field would grow and envelope the outer fringes. You may notice that in all the information about our sun, there is no longer a hint of any plasma jets. Long gone if ever there. We hear all the time that the sun is only 4.6 Gyears old. The image of DGtauB only displays a star condensing long prior to ignition... a young star that will likely glow as if it were a brown or red dwarf prior to ignition while the temperature gradually rises to fusion tmperature.

There, in #83, is a pictorial description of a field that would also process those jets till that dust alley is far more dense than what is seen.
I'm not sure why you think that field is neccessary, and I am equally uncertain as to what you think it might explain better than the current model.

I'm not sure why you think that field is neccessary, and I am equally uncertain as to what you think it might explain better than the current model.

Discussing #83:

Either a sufficient field to accrete anything at all is there or it won't happen. It would need to happen without the field being there and generated by soimething extemely small and extremely powerful, or gravity would need to be an inbound force that drives all the material into a stream of colision centered on one point, or perhapd a finite number of points, very close, along the same axis.

Discussing #83:

Either a sufficient field to accrete anything at all is there or it won't happen. It would need to happen without the field being there and generated by soimething extemely small and extremely powerful, or gravity would need to be an inbound force that drives all the material into a stream of colision centered on one point, or perhapd a finite number of points, very close, along the same axis.

This makes no sense at all.

Under the mainstream model, all that's really required is a knot of sufficient density, at an appropriate temperature, and everythign follows naturally from that according to gravity, the conservation of angular momentum, and perhaps some electromagnetism.

There's even a number of different models for knots to reach said temperature and density.

I recently modeled an example of the field around the forming star. I have to import it to this machine and reduce it for the board...

probably later today.Let's see your equations. It's easy to come up with a surface parametrisation which gives the thing you have in your picture. Justifying it from a plasma & GR construct is entirely different.


I have the right to believe you are not remotely qualified to comment technically or scientifically about the field shown above.

If we can't get beyond discussing this field geometry, then how can we discuss the deeper meaning of why all that material heading into DG tau B's center just might do that and how that process just might make some of that material luminesce.I am absolutely qualified to talk about differential geometry, general relativity, black holes and particle physics. I've repeatedly asked you to give details but you not only don't, you ignore my requests.

It's a sign you're knowingly dishonest.

This makes no sense at all.

Under the mainstream model, all that's really required is a knot of sufficient density, at an appropriate temperature, and everythign follows naturally from that according to gravity, the conservation of angular momentum, and perhaps some electromagnetism.

There's even a number of different models for knots to reach said temperature and density.

We just said basically the same thing, only you left out the alternative.

It's a sign you're knowingly dishonest.

Now would you answer someone who just gave you garbage like that so obviously mean spirited?

It could just as easily be a sign that I don't have my equation editor completed, so I lack the right stuff to post it. How difficult is it to calculate the sweep of an eccentric ellipse?

Just because the math isn't included at the moment doesn't mean you wouldn't arrive at basically the same geometry. The generatrix requires an eccentric, elliptical cross-section to produce a pattern like that of incoming material.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4546&stc=1&d=1330296686


The above shows a more advanced disk. The star has not yet ignited, still the jets are present. The gravitational field to support this size and shape disk would be a much larger variation of what is shown in #83

We just said basically the same thing, only you left out the alternative.

No, we did not.

What you said reads like a stream of gibberish strung together at random. What I said was a genuine effort at describing the forces involved in a reasonably understandable manner.

No, we did not.

What you said reads like a stream of gibberish strung together at random. What I said was a genuine effort at describing the forces involved in a reasonably understandable manner.

I disagree.

Now would you answer someone who just gave you garbage like that so obviously mean spirited? I've asked you more than once, you've ignored each time. Besides, you're the one saying to people they aren't sufficiently qualified to discuss the stuff with you, hardly taking the moral high ground are you? Particularly since you're obviously not sufficiently qualified to talk about this stuff with any confidence yourself.


It could just as easily be a sign that I don't have my equation editor completed, so I lack the right stuff to post it. How difficult is it to calculate the sweep of an eccentric ellipse? You don't need an equation editor, the forum supports LaTeX. For example, G_{ab} = R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{ab}.

As for the ellipse, the reason I'm asking you to provide your working is so you can show the derivation. The whole point is that you state your base assumptions and work through to your conclusion. Until then you're just pulling a shape out of your backside.


Just because the math isn't included at the moment doesn't mean you wouldn't arrive at basically the same geometry. The generatrix requires an eccentric, elliptical cross-section to produce a pattern like that of incoming material. Talk is cheap. Let's see some calculus.


The above shows a more advanced disk. The star has not yet ignited, still the jets are present. The gravitational field to support this size and shape disk would be a much larger variation of what is shown in #83Jets from things like black holes don't require the star to be ignited. That's not a new concept. That's how radio galaxies form.

Come on, put your maths where your mouth is.

I disagree.

Prove it - demonstrate how your post relates to mine, and how the concepts are related without torturing the english language.

Now would you answer someone who just gave you garbage like that so obviously mean spirited?

It could just as easily be a sign that I don't have my equation editor completed, so I lack the right stuff to post it. How difficult is it to calculate the sweep of an eccentric ellipse?

Just because the math isn't included at the moment doesn't mean you wouldn't arrive at basically the same geometry. The generatrix requires an eccentric, elliptical cross-section to produce a pattern like that of incoming material.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4546&stc=1&d=1330296686


The above shows a more advanced disk. The star has not yet ignited, still the jets are present. The gravitational field to support this size and shape disk would be a much larger variation of what is shown in #83

The images in your OP are very much of "ignited" stars. NASA and the Hubble Team within Nasa state so. There have been dozens of papers written about those images, many of them have been linked in this thread. And every single one of them discounts your claims and your arguments. You even went so far as to try to claim that their [Hubble Team] findings were "similar" to yours. They were not. They also hold and so does everyone else, that the disks of dust from the images in your OP in the Orion Nebula do not form into planets because they are being bombarded by nearby stars and the stars the dust is circling is also preventing them from forming into planets (in other words, as the particles of dust swirl together, they are then broken up again by nearby stars and the star they are circling).

What is funny about this thread is that you have consistently ignored questions from several very qualified individuals and you are still doing it.
What is not funny is that it resulted in your being banned once and I can assure you, you will be banned again if you persist in this fashion.

Time-dependent Accretion by Magnetic Young Stellar Objects as a Launching Mechanism for Stellar Jets (http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/489/1/199/fulltext/36030.text.html)

HectorDecimal:

Why are you posting images of active galactic nuclei when you're talking about star formation? Jets from black holes at the centres of galaxies are not related to star formation.

@James --

That's a good question.

...................to which the answer, if any, should be interesting.

HectorDecimal:

Why are you posting images of active galactic nuclei when you're talking about star formation? Jets from black holes at the centres of galaxies are not related to star formation.

Probably because that tiny image was on my machine somewhere it wasn't supposed to be and I mistook it for something else. I truly cannot read that small type anymore.

Taking that into consideration, though, isn't a bad example of a gravitational field in action.

HectorDecimal


Taking that into consideration, though, isn't a bad example of a gravitational field in action.

But it bears not the least bit of simularity to the crap you have been trying to promote, which is the point we all have been making. You are trying to greatly complicate a very simple, well established principle only for, as far as I have seen, your own personal agrandizement or that of your belief system. It seems your feelings are hurt because of a lack of "Oohs and Aahs" in recognition to your wonderfulness and genius. You might try a religious forum, they really don't know any better, we do.

Grumpy:cool:

The image of DGtauB only displays a star condensing long prior to ignition... a young star that will likely glow as if it were a brown or red dwarf prior to ignition while the temperature gradually rises to fusion tmperature.

Didn't the Hubble people describe these as photographs of young accreting sysems in which the brightness of the central star is obscured by dust lanes?

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/05/text/

They seem to be saying that in most examples of young accreting stellar systems, the brightness of the central star makes it difficult to image accompanying detail. But when the systems happen to be edge-on to us, the accretion disk can block out the star's brilliance, making it easier to image what's surrounding the star and reflecting its light.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/05/image/e/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/05/

An additional problem is that all of this astronomical stuff doesn't appear to have very much relevance to the Genesis 1 cosmology. That connection still needs to be explained.

HectorDecimal



But it bears not the least bit of simularity to the crap you have been trying to promote, which is the point we all have been making. You are trying to greatly complicate a very simple, well established principle only for, as far as I have seen, your own personal agrandizement or that of your belief system. It seems your feelings are hurt because of a lack of "Oohs and Aahs" in recognition to your wonderfulness and genius. You might try a religious forum, they really don't know any better, we do.

Grumpy:cool:

Unfortunately for your blood quest, my feelings don't rely on validation from the Internet. Essentially the same type of remark could be leveled right back at yours. Out of all the requests for mathematical proof, I notice nobody has offered anything to disprove what I see as graphically axiomatic. I don't do latex. I'm coding an editor that will allow me to capture the equations graphically to a jpg that which I have to enter at the keyboard. If I don't do all that fast enough to suit your demands, too bad.

The fact is the religious forum people probably DO know better than the ones so insistent on postulating their own atheistic religion. They take it all on faith and go about singing praises. I don't define that as anything other than a belief and an exersize in their right to believe whatever they want.

Be as mean spirited as you like. It doesn't hurt my feelings, only my respect for your posts.

Didn't the Hubble people describe these as photographs of young accreting sysems in which the brightness of the central star is obscured by dust lanes?

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/05/text/

They seem to be saying that in most examples of young accreting stellar systems, the brightness of the central star makes it difficult to image accompanying detail. But when the systems happen to be edge-on to us, the accretion disk can block out the star's brilliance, making it easier to image what's surrounding the star and reflecting its light.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/05/image/e/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/05/

An additional problem is that all of this astronomical stuff doesn't appear to have very much relevance to the Genesis 1 cosmology. That connection still needs to be explained.

The HST people are assuming their is a bright star obscurred. There is nothing obvious to validate such.

The HST people are assuming their is a bright star obscurred. There is nothing obvious to validate such.

Yes there is.

@Hector --


Out of all the requests for mathematical proof, I notice nobody has offered anything to disprove what I see as graphically axiomatic.

You're the one positing things without demonstrating them, the burden of proof is still on you. Why don't you provide some mathematical proof. And then, for an encore you could demonstrate that your equations accurately reflect observation. So far I've seen none of this from you.

Out of all the requests for mathematical proof, I notice nobody has offered anything to disprove what I see as graphically axiomatic.

Really?


Time-dependent Accretion by Magnetic Young Stellar Objects as a Launching Mechanism for Stellar Jets (http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/489/1/199/fulltext/36030.text.html)

That's one paper. Anyway, the burden of proof is on you.

HectorDecimal


"The HST people are assuming their is a bright star obscurred. There is nothing obvious to validate such...

...if you ignore the massive infrared radiation seen coming from the dust at rates far above those that gravity alone can account for, that is".


The fact is the religious forum people probably DO know better than the ones so insistent on postulating their own atheistic religion.

I'm not the one saying his religion trumps real science, that would be you. Genesis in no way is supported by the science you are so busy twisting into knots to try to make it do so. Your claims are Religious in nature, I make no such claims and everything I have posted in these forums is either supported by established science or, if not, plainly labeled as my opinion.

Grumpy:cool:

Anyway, the burden of proof is on you.

It's a burden too heavy for HD to carry.

Unfortunately for your blood quest, my feelings don't rely on validation from the Internet. Essentially the same type of remark could be leveled right back at yours. Out of all the requests for mathematical proof, I notice nobody has offered anything to disprove what I see as graphically axiomatic. I don't do latex. I'm coding an editor that will allow me to capture the equations graphically to a jpg that which I have to enter at the keyboard. If I don't do all that fast enough to suit your demands, too bad.I don't believe you do any equations, graphically or otherwise.

The results are now WIP. What I'm doing is analyzing trhe RGB data of the DG Tau B. Although I still need to collect more samplings than from a single corner, then effectively convert the RGB data to a frequency, it seems the outer fringe contains color that is not being reflected from the jets.